- (1.) BHAGWAN Din, J. Heard Sri P. C. Srivaslava, the learned counsel appearing for the revisionists and the learned A. G. A.
(2.) THE revisionists are beine, tried in Sessions Trial No. 460 of 1989, on the charge of murder punishable under Sec tion 302, I. P. C. by the XII-Addl. Sessions Judge, Moradabad. In the course of trial as many as three witnesses have already been examined and the evidence of the complainant, Mohd. Salim was to be recorded. A date was fixed for the evidence of the complainant. THE revisionist, Abdul Samad sought adjournment on the ground that he wanted to change counsel and engage Sri Moti Lal Jain. THE Court al lowed time and fixed 2-8-99. On that date the revisionist against applied for adjourn ment on the ground that the counsel, Sri M. L. Jain has not come to the Court. THE Court was lenient enough to grant another adjournment fixing 16-8-99 for evidence of complainant as P. W. 4. THE case was ad journed again for the reason that another counsel Sri Sudhir Gupta was busy in another Court ultimately 2-9-99 was fixed for evidence of P. W. 4. On that date the revisionist again moved the Court for ad journment on the ground that the brother of the counsel, Sri M. L. Jain had expired and he is not in a position to come to the Court. THE trial Court rejected the ap plication for adjournmeni on the grounds; firstly, that the brother of Sri M. L. Jain expired on 17-8-99 and by the date i. e. 2-9-99 all the ritual ceremonies observed after death rould be performed and there would be no reason for Sri M. L. Jain not to come to the Court and cross-examine the witness, secondly, that it is oldest case of 1989 on the file of the Sessions Judge and his endeavourance is to conclude the trial within the reasonable time. The revisionists feeling aggrieved of this order has filed the present revision on the ground that the delay in the con clusion of the trial was not on the part of the accused/revisionists but due to dialec tic tactics resorted to by the complainant and that if the revisionists are not allowed adjournment their interest will be jeop ardised. It appears that irial of the revisionists commenced from 3-1- 90, the date when charges were framed. The prosecution examined two witnesses. Thereafter the complaint moved an ap plication before the Sessions Judge for transfer of the trial from that Court to the other. The Sessions Judge rejected the ap plication, The complainant filed another application before the High Court for transfer of the Sessions trial to some other Court. This application was dismissed in October, 1994. The complainant did not inform the Court till 1-3-96 the dismissal of his application for transfer, when a let ter from the High Court was received in the trial Court on 12-3-96 the trial of the revisionists resumed. The complainant was called to appear and give his evidence. He did not come. Bailable and non-bail able warrants were issued. He defied the Court's order, hence, proceedings under Section 82/83, Cr. P. C. were also resorted to procure his attendance in the Court. Any how he appeared in the Court with a view to delay the conclusion of the trial he moved an application dated 19-3-99 before the Ses-sioj Judge for transfer of the trial. It was dismissed on 22-3-99. He again moved an application on 23-3-99 through his mother for transfer of the trial. This application too was dismissed on 19-6-99.
(3.) FROM the above chronological events the complainant's conduct also appears to be one of the factors in the delay of the conclusion of the trial. Any how, when the trial has commenced it is obligatory on the accused to cooperate the Court in conclusion of the trial and not to seek unnecessary adjournments on one or the other pretexts. If such practice is permitted in the name of justice no trial come to end. At the same time, it may also be considered by the trial Court that the interest of the accused is not killed for want of cross-examination of a witness by the counsel on the reasonable and sufficient ground. In the instant case the trial Court has refused the adjournment and dis charged the complainant without cross-examination.;